of a chain of ghastly experiences in the world of the 18th Century, a
world with many similarities to our own. In the end, a feeling of
disgust at the corruption of public life at all levels, combined with
a feeling of individual impotence, leads to a withdrawal from public
life to dedicate ourselves to our small private worlds, where there is
still a possibility of soldarity, concern, decency and human warmth.
Yet, thirty years after the publication of Voltaire's masterpiece, the
French Revolution (majorly inspired by ideas of many such as Voltaire)
erupted in Europe, changing all the paradigms. The ghastly
contradictions underlying much of what defines our modern societies
are becoming more evident and are giving rise to increasing
resistance; from the Arab Spring to the Occupy Wall St./Frankfurt/City/
etc. movements.
What worries me, among other things, is the lesson of history that
when systems finally collapse (or are torn down) as a result of
intolerable contradictions, the period of change leading to the
establishment of new paradigms is generally accompanied by terrible
suffering and death for millions - whether the Jacobin terror, or the
events in the wake of the February and October Revolutions in Russia.
And, of course, the fact that the same corrupt, cynical, corrupt
bastards and criminals either retain power (Talleyrand) or that even
worse clones of the same (Stalin) rise to the top ...
On 19 Okt., 19:25, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't take it myself to be honest Chris. Derrida used to say we are
> in spirit positive. In Anglo-Saxon terms he was just a liberal, almost
> priestly as a bloke over a few beers. I was younger then, still able
> to knock things over and feel it was worth the bother. I suspect we
> don't understand "negation" very well. Gabby (bless) always has some
> - or it seems that way (I remember very positive support of me some
> years back) - and the question arising is when this becomes as much
> censorship as all the other stuff we might brand as that. It isn't
> "negation" or the sting of criticism that really gets to me, more
> selfish attitudes in what I feel as madness, triumphed as positive but
> perpetual children. I like kids and even childish behaviour as
> entertainment. I can't stand the failure of education in making a
> decent society of responsible adults.
> I've done a lot more than most in playing the game - £7 million in
> research/project grants doesn't come from admissions projects will
> fail in the business plan. But the critical eye has to admit the
> majority fail and I was often signing-off on lies. £9K for university
> tutoring (outside of science and engineering) goes to fund middle-
> class lifestyles of the university hangers-on not towards the
> education of the young person. When last full-time, I was teaching
> 100 FTEs at least (200 times £9K = £900K in fees leaving £810K after
> my costs). I could have done a better job for the students with
> properly organised distance learning and a 'university' organised
> around local pubs, theartres and sports clubs done through social
> media - the overhead costed at around £100K (electronic library
> etc.). A better education with much more opportunity for small
> business involvement and so on at under a third of the cost and one
> not building onerous debt. What is negative in this? And sadly, the
> answer is easy middle-class incomes. I can go on an explain how even
> these would not be affected as we could expand more practical
> education and work development. I'm talking here of a more social,
> more tutor supported education better than the expensive, debt-
> producing fantasy we're forcing kids into. And one with lots of local
> creative possibilities with less bureaucracy and vastly increased
> 'civic' involvement.
> You have to 'deconstruct' to get to the above idea - and elsewhere in
> terms of stuff like agricultural and manufacturing productivity we
> have done this with little thought on the jobs lost by workers -
> indeed we've run roughshod over 'them'. The point in the negation
> should be positive - about the use of efficiency for general well-
> being and the creation of wider prosperity, probably redefined.
>
> What's hard, Chris, is facing-up to what life means to most people -
> the economics I've never taught (but colleagues have from a single
> text book) leads to a few very rich and the rest in debt-rent-mortgage
> peonage and the arms' race. It must be obvious we barely have even
> capitalism. It would be great to be able to ignore politics and the
> status quo, but we need to build so we can. The old phrase from the
> 50's (I only know from reading) was 'structuring freedom'. The human
> population has tripled since I was born (I reject personal, intimate
> responsibility!) - all very 'free' - producing planet burning and soon
> 'competition for air'. Raising questions about how complex freedom
> is.
>
> The weight on us - if we think for improved practice - is complexity
> that most use simple Idols on to make their sense. I played rugby and
> was a cop. The whole Bradford Northern front row were less
> intimidating than the mad munter of some low-life I might nick with a
> bread knife. The rules and structure of the competition allow rugby -
> but what rules and structure would allow a decent society. Not every
> claim can count in trying to do that do should, in principle be heard
> so we don't 'go total' like some Spanish Fascit (fair typo) stealing
> babies from their ideologically unsound mothers.
>
> I guess that fear is the load we are experiencing - maybe like that of
> animals in hierarchies under all kinds of complex leader power - just
> look what cockroaches and bees do to members in their 'reaching
> consensus rules'. Even the really positive is negative - we can now
> support human life without much effort - so why do we need poverty?
> That would destroy the motivation of the rest of us now, wouldn't it?
> The most obvious fact in the world is that most of what we claim we
> want as moral individuals needs a change in what society is and what
> people can aspire to as persons in it - otherwise we head to the usual
> human solution, war.
>
> Maybe I should 'out Dilbert' Scott Adams, you do some illustrations
> and pics, and we should watch the fireworks from Bermuda? I like the
> shadows in Bermuda.
>
> On Oct 19, 3:56 pm, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I've never had someone so casually create a crushing despair in me, Neil.
> > Your writing has always affected me greatly, but the sense of general
> > futility that is often expressed weighs a ton. As someone who still holds
> > out hope for society's betterment, your words often feel like mountains on
> > my head.The sense of truth in them, I think, is what gives them so much
> > weight.
>
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:25 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The smell of authority gets up my nose however disguised Gabby - we've
> > > just seen an example in rugby union with a Welsh player sent off for a
> > > decent tackle and then banned for three games to reinforce the
> > > referee's authority. It all reeks of what people do given authority.
> > > Sport hardly matters, but the example is good. I don't know what's
> > > happening in Detroit. I do know that in Spain a ring of bastards
> > > (priests, nuns, doctors) removed 40,000 kids from their parents and
> > > adopted through mass baby trafficking beyond the Fascists. I was
> > > tempted once to become an anarcho-existential organisational
> > > practitioner and break some windows from the inside, but somehow
> > > jargon remains with the same smell.
> > > Molly's got a point - the problem is that words so rarely match what
> > > happens. The gadfly of irony loses its sting too,much as increasing
> > > lexicon (equafinality, artifactuality etc.) ... and paradigms of
> > > synergy fade in the dust of asset strippers.
>
> > > So where are the solutions we might express?
>
> > > On Oct 18, 8:15 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Puh, this is the flowery version of "I am against dualism" (compare: All
> > > > power plays are based in these memes because they require opposition),
> > > which
> > > > is understandable if the writer gets payed by the line. Whereby the scent
> > > of
> > > > power being related to hierarchies is decently overtoned, now isn't that
> > > > lovely. No mod here has the power over the ban button, this is me here
> > > > trolling and spreading an unpleasant odor. Puh, could someone please
> > > > let in some fresh air?
>
> > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Power relations work only in a group with leadership who's view is
> > > > > based on power and the idea that "i" or "we" can have more or less
> > > > > than "you." There are views that realize that every group operates
> > > > > holistically, and the flow of operation and pinnacle of achievement is
> > > > > not dependent on power but synergy. A savvy leader knows the group
> > > > > members potentiality, talent, perceived limitation, resources etc.,
> > > > > and creates the conditions necessary for every and all to move beyond
> > > > > them as a whole. It takes a big picture view of how each person
> > > > > operates and where the group fits in the community (whole). A group
> > > > > with such leadership can become a change agent. The leadership
> > > > > understands that power is a misnomer, as it is not power that fuels
> > > > > the group effort, but synergy.
>
> > > > > Given, not all groups operate like this. Not everyone has realized
> > > > > the fallacious nature of "power." Fallacious because we indeed are
> > > > > operating as a whole on the more subtle levels. Our view can distort
> > > > > what is really occurring, because it is often too narrow (egocentric -
> > > > > me against them- or ethnocentric - us against them.) All power plays
> > > > > are based in these memes because they require opposition. Leaders who
> > > > > allow the talent in the group to emerge and mentor, who can inspire
> > > > > group vision and keep the group focused to it, who recognized each
> > > > > individual contribution and potential and provide resources necessary
> > > > > for fulfillment are indeed rare. But they are emerging whether by
> > > > > necessity of a higher calling.
>
> > > > > I find it interesting that here in Detroit, Mayor Bing, who receives a
> > > > > whopping $.90 annual salary, has done more to allow the worldcentric
> > > > > leadership of the city to emerge than anyone in the history of the
> > > > > city. His critics say that he has not made any tangible change
> > > > > although you don't have to look far to see that he has. He operates
> > > > > at a much higher meme than our President, although I suspect that the
> > > > > conditions of the world might not be ready for any other than a power
> > > > > based person in the Presidency.
>
> > > > > Power relations are inevitable in groups whose members know no other
> > > > > way. But there are other ways and other views.
>
> > > > > On Oct 17, 7:00 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I think we have to admit to some inevitability of power relations -
> > > > > > objectivity gets as invasive as bully-power if we aren't careful.
>
> > > > > > On Oct 17, 2:27 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Personal power seems part and parcel to living authentically
>
> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário